Métodos de priorización: Método electre

Under theae^circumstances, the Methodists could use their position half-way.between Church and Dissent to disguise their activity. This was useful for it enabled them to retain the "No Politics rule" in theory while neglecting it in practice. Their anti-catholicism was so overt that their, "no politics" theory was believed by no-one but them­ selves, Yet it did stop them using their full political potentialities in a coherent way. The Methodists would never be a powerful, extra- parliamentary political, pressure group until the rule was dispensed with, as in the opposition to Sidmouth’s Bill.

•' The Catholic Emancipation Bill passed with large majorities; the agitation from Ireland, O ’Connell’s election for Clare and the

’conversions’ of Peel and Wellington ensured that. Machin states that "tolerant conviction played no part in the Government’s purpose. On the other hand, intolerant conviction was not strong enough to defeat this

83

purpose. The Ultras were helpless," Popular anti-catholic prejudice was not effectively aroused. The Tory constitutioniats were in no position to tap this prejudice, because of their inherent conservatism. But why was there no strong protest from the Anglican Evangelicals and the dissenters? Both groups had roots in the popular religious life of the nation, yet in both as among the Methodists, "the opposition to

_ . . . .

Emancipation died at the top." , The dissenters had achieved the Repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts in 18%8, and were in no position to prevent the extension of relief to another religioua group. At the last meeting of the United Committee, (appointed to conduct the Appli­ cation to Parliament for the Repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts), it was resolved that "although the Committee had abstained in its own 83 Machin, op.cit., p.178,

application from coalition with other applicants it could not separate without expressing its desire for the abolition of all laws interfering with the rights of conscience and attacking civil disabilities to

- ^ ^ ^ ^ 85

religious faith and worship,"

The Anglican Evangelicals presented a much less, united front than has been sometimes a s s u m e d . O f course, it is easy to find well-known Evangelicals who were strongly anti-catholic; Charles Simeon, Hannah More, Zachariah MaCauley and Granville Sharp. After 1826, with the

growth of. pre-millenial doctrines, anti-catholicism was strengthened in

g ^

Anglican Evangelicalism through men like McNeile and' Bickersteth. Nevertheless the impressive feature about the votes of the Evangelical Parliamentarians is not their anti-catholicism, but their liberalism.

In the Lords two Evangelical peers (Earl of Shaftesbury and Viscount Horton) were opposed to emancipation. In the Commons Buxton and Abel

Smith were similarly opposed. With these exceptions "every Evangelical in Parliament voted for emancipation. Seven commoners, four peers- temporal, and (in the division of 1829) four peers- spiritual were on the Catholic side."^^

In Parliament, the Opposition to emancipation was led primarily by the Church Tories, the Bishops and the Irish landowners. In the country the opposition was largely impotent because the leaders of the Church Evangelicals, Protestant Dissenters and Wesleyan Methodists, decided for one reason or another not to enter the fray. Cobhett and Hunt also used

. . . ■ . - - - * ' - * g g

their influence among the working-classes to support emancipation. 85 B.L. Manning, The Protestant Dissenting Deputies, p.252.

86 See Hexter, op.cit., pp.306-307 for a brief critique of the views of .Overton and HaleVy,...

87 See Iain Murray, The Puritan Hope, ch.ix. 88 Hexter, op.cit., p.307.

89 Both Cobbett and Hunt spoke at the Penenden Heath meeting in favour of Emancipation. Sheil, op.cit., pp.193-218.

These factors help explain the muted protest from the country when Emancipation was carried.

Even though the Methodists as a body had not opposed the Emanci­ pation Bill its passage was still a bitter pill for them to swallow. Their reactions were extreme, revealing a sense of disappointment and betrayal. The biographer of Fossey Tackaberry, an Irish preacher stationed at Drogheda records that "A month after the measure became law, in answer to the enquiry, ’What do you think of the times?’ he replied, manifestly under the influence of strong emotion; ’I scarcely know what to think, but this I believe, that on the 13th April, 1829, the King did what he could to emancipate every Protestant in the British dominions from his oath of allegiance.,, I think infidels and Romanists will unite against the Establishment.’^^

In England, it was not only the passage of the Bill which was condemned, but also Peel’s defection. Vevers attacked him strongly in

91

his pamphlet of March, 1829, but the Methodist sense of betrayal is best captured by Richard Treffry;

"And here is Robert Peel - the staunch tory and anti-catliolic whose judgement was so unerring whose integrity was so unquestionable who knew Popery well enough to declare"that Papists could give no

Security to a government who might be so liberal and silly as to trust them - Peel the chosen of the University of Oxford - whose very name was the rallying word for good true strong unaltering

constitutional British feeling - he is convinced too that Emanci­ pation must be granted - the apostate! "

Only Bunting was unperturbed, because he bjeli.eyed that Reel was right. Nevertheless, the Methodist opposition to Emancipation was as widespread as it was resolute. It is symbolised by the fact that two

90 R. Huston, The Life of the Rev. Fossey Tackaberry, pp.171-173. 91 Vevers, op.cit.